TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Cordor v. Morse

THOMAS W. CORDOR v. HENRY N. MORSE

Cordor v. Morse, 57 Cal. 301 (1881)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 1, 1881
Docket
No. 6,677
Citations
57 Cal. 301
Syllabus
New Tbiax.—Held, that the order in this case granting a new trial upon terms was not erroneous.
Summary
Appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, and an order granting a new trial, in the Third District Court, County of Alameda. McKee, J. The following is the order from which the defendant appealed : “ This cause having been heretofore submitted to the Court, upon defendant’s motion for a new trial herein, and the Court having now fully considered the same, it is ordered that said motion be and the same hereby is granted, upon the payment by defendant of the costs taxed herein, as per cost bill on file, within five days; and it is further ordered, that if the conditions of this order be complied with, that said cause be placed on the calendar for trial at this term of the Court.”

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

The Court:

There is no error in the ruling of the Court below in this cause, and the judgment and orders appealed from are affirmed..

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1894: 11895: 11957: 118942026peak 1894 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Garoutte v. Haley38 P. 194 (Cal. 1894)
  2. Brooks v. San Francisco & North Pacific Railway Co.42 P. 570 (Cal. 1895)
  3. Williams v. Harry Hufford313 P.2d 930 (Cal. Ct. App. 1957)

Most recent

  1. Williams v. Harry Hufford313 P.2d 930 (Cal. Ct. App. 1957)
  2. Brooks v. San Francisco & North Pacific Railway Co.42 P. 570 (Cal. 1895)
  3. Garoutte v. Haley38 P. 194 (Cal. 1894)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list